caltradesecrets.com

Posts Tagged ‘Trial’

Blog Notice: In Trial, So Fewer Updates to California Trade Secrets This Week

In Blog Status on December 4, 2010 at 9:15 am
Присяжные заседатели на процессе Бейлиса Jury ...
Image via Wikipedia

I am in trial, so there will be fewer updates until December 11.

Best,

Charles

Enhanced by Zemanta
Advertisements

Plaintiffs Awarded Over $1 Million After Bench Trial in a Trade Secrets Case

In Judgments, Verdicts on November 2, 2010 at 11:41 am
Engraving of Gilbert and Sullivan's Trial by Jury.
Image via Wikipedia

After a bench trial in San Francisco Superior Court, plaintiffs in a trade secrets case recovered judgment on the merits against certain defendants in the amount of $921,469, plus pre-judgment interest in the amount of $301,664, and punitive damages of $275,000.  UltraEx Inc. vs. Express It Delivery Services Inc., Case No., CGC-05-447942, 2010 WL 4260535, 44 Trials Digest 13th 5 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Verdict Date: April 1, 2010).

According to court records, on April 29, 1998, plaintiff UltraEx Inc. merged with two other corporations, Express It Courier Services Inc. (“Old Express It”) and 800 Courier Inc.  Id. *1. Plaintiff was the surviving corporation in this merger, but prior to the merger, Old Express It and 800 Courier had each been actively conducting a package delivery business in California.  Id. Defendant Express It Delivery Services Inc. (“New Express It”) was a California corporation formed in November 2004. Id. Read the rest of this entry »

After Nine Years of Litigation, Jasmine Networks v. Marvell Semiconductor Finally Proceeds to Trial

In Trial on October 5, 2010 at 9:38 am
Engraving of Gilbert and Sullivan's Trial by Jury.
Image via Wikipedia

After over nine years of litigation, the trade secrets misappropriation case in Jasmine Networks, Inc. v. Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. is underway.   As reported by Kate Moser of The Recorder, Jasmine, represented by San Francisco’s McGrane Greenfield, contends that Marvell abused a nondisclosure agreement to rip off valuable intellectual property and claims that it lost business worth $80 million to $100 million.  Marvell’s attorneys have argued that Jasmine’s alleged trade secrets are based on stolen technology that Jasmine tried to pass off to Marvell as its own: “The truth is that Jasmine was a failed start-up founded at the tail end of the technology boom of the late 1990s,” Bauer wrote in Marvell’s trial brief. “In its short life, it never completed a product, did not obtain a single patent, and earned not a penny of revenue.”

The case was filed on September 12, 2001, and has featured two appeals to the Sixth District Court of Appeal.  Last June, the trial judge dismissed the case for lack of standing by Jasmine, but the Sixth District reversed, and the California Supreme Court denied Marvell’s petition for review and stay.

Jasmine’s key evidence is an infamous voice mail accidentally left by Marvell’s former general counsel, where he called a Jasmine in-house lawyer and apparently meant to hang up, but allegedly continued to talk with two colleagues on speakerphone about stealing trade secrets from Jasmine.  The voicemail was finally played for a jury on Friday.  A transcript prepared by Jasmine quotes Marvell’s former general counsel as saying: Read the rest of this entry »

Central District Issues Rare Opinion Rejecting Stipulated Protective Order

In Protective Orders on August 23, 2010 at 6:47 am
Tire-Euro-Bad
Image via Wikipedia By CHARLES H. JUNG

Magistrate Judge Fernando M. Olguin issued a rare opinion about a stipulated protective order, rejecting the proposed  stipulated order in Murphy v. Continental Tire North America, Inc., No. CV 09-3004 GHK (FMOx), 2010 WL 3260183 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2010).  The court gave six  reasons for the rejection, including the failure to include a good cause statement (citing Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Elecs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing)), lack of specificity in the description of the material to be protected (the parties used conclusory terms such as “confidential technical information”), and duration (“once a case proceeds to trial, all of the information that was designated as confidential and/or kept and maintained pursuant to the terms of a protective order becomes public and will be presumptively available to all members of the public, including the press, unless good cause is shown to the district judge in advance of the trial to proceed otherwise”).   Read the rest of this entry »

Blog Notice: In Trial, So Will Post Shorter Updates This Week

In Blog Status on August 21, 2010 at 10:12 am
This is Swampyank's copy of "The Jury&quo...
Image via Wikipedia

I’m in trial the week of August 22, 2010.  I’ll continue updating the latest case law developments and jury verdicts, but the summaries will be more abbreviated.

Best,

Charles

Enhanced by Zemanta